According to Wikipedia - all MMORPG's are sandboxes.
The games have a free route and choices of play. The moment you have a choice how you like to play it can be considered a sandbox.
Gods of War or D2 could be considered a theme parc as you'll need to follow a very liniair path to advance.
All the rest is small talk and very personal opinion (like stating a sandbox means players can "construct" something, but all MMORPG's let you construct things and these things change the game - from a potion to transports to weapons).
So the term "sandbox" and certainly theme parc are - on purpose - misused by people spitting myst to what's the core problem of 95% of all MMORPG's: and that's simply very bad games (and no WOW is not one of these).
I'll sign in and post on these moldy forums for the first time in a while to heartily concur with the OP. I've pretty much stopped paying attention to MMOs for all the reasons he brought up.
I was there for the beginning of UO too and I can't help but feel everything this genre was meant to be has fallen short, and regressed.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
That was a refreshing read. Good to see that there are other gamers out there like myself that are looking for more than facebook with elves. I don't understand how people can get so worked up about getting killed in a game. If you had to work for your gear, you are doing it wrong. It shouldn't be work for you, it should be fun, and if you lose it, well at least you enjoyed the journey along the way. In fact, you should enjoy the game enough that getting a new set isn't any sweat off your back. Sheesh, you'd think actual lives depended on this shit the way people carry on about it.
Put that scenario - losing gear - in the context of two very common mindsets found in MMO players these days:
1) They must get to level cap as fast as possible because "End Game Is All That Matters (tm)"
2) They won't tolerate any penalties or loss of any kind, in any form because "Games Are Supposed To Be Fun And Being Penalized For Making Mistakes Is Not Fun(tm)". This often goes hand-in-hand with, "I Should Be Rewarded Handsomely And Often, No Matter How Menial The Task, Because Being Rewarded For Doing Next To Nothing Is Fun (tm)".
... and it becomes clear why that's the case.
In the case of 1: For people with such a mindset, losing gear, corpse runs, losing xp and so on are nothing but obstacles that get in their way of getting to end-game as fast as possible. Even the risk of dying by doing quests that are *supposed* to be difficult is unacceptable... they'll just get someone higher level to clear it out for them, while they hang back and do nothing. Such players routinely undermine content as they race through to that imaginary finish line they've decided is "the entire reason for playing" (in a genre where finish lines don't exist, no less)... then they get to "End Game", grind through the same handful of raids over and over again (all the while, complaining about leveling up being "too much of a grind"... irony, I know) to get their uber loot...
They inevitably get bored, blame the devs for not having "enough content" (of course, never acknowledging the 70, 80 or whatever levels of content they raced past for even a second), and then move on to the next MMO that they're *certain* will be "better" (because the interviews and promo videos say so)... only to do exactly the same thing, and end up in exactly the same way.
In the case of 2: Many players - and not just MMO players - can not stand adversity or challenge of any kind. If they can't do it on their first time, or if it seems "too hard" for them to do, it's "unfair and has to be made easier". And, unfortunately, society has been largely catering to them in that regard. Just look at the education system in the US as a great example. Rather than encouraging and challenging kids to work harder, reach higher and do better... the bar just keeps getting lowered so it's easier for them to reach. Sounds kinda like a few MMOs I know.
In terms of gaming. I can't even begin to tell you how many people I've known or talked to (at gaming stores, etc) who will brag about how quickly they "beat" a given game... actually knocking others for "sucking at it" if it took them longer, only to find out they used cheat codes or those "game genie" things for the entire game. Yep.. they basically cheated through the entire game, put themselves on god mode... and then dare to gloat about beating the game faster than people who actually played it legitimately. They're basically on tourist mode for the entire game, and they honestly believe it's a valid achievement.
Yep... just keep lowering that bar.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I agree with you, that the term gets misused quite a bit. It starts with people talking about it as if its innately superior to linearity, and then some get mixed up, and want to call everything they like a sandbox, and everything they don't, a themepark. Such is loose terminology, though. It can be annoying, but hardly calls for tossing the word out entirely or negating it by calling all MMOs sandboxes. Sure, they might be, compared to some games, but its a very comparative term, generally used within a given genre.
Yep... that seems to be the case around here.
Take any word that has a very well established definition - or at least a commonly accepted one - introduce it to the MMORPG.com forums, and some folks around here will decide it means what ever they need it to mean to serve their purpose.
The word "Free" has been one of the more recent examples. In their arguments in favor of F2P MMOs, some have decided that paying $20-$40 for Guild Wars makes it "free", because there's no sub fee. The term "Free To Play" was established and has been consistently applied to games where there's no payment required to download and play the game itself - no cost of entry, at all. However, to use what is arguably a very well-regarded AAA game in support of F2P, they're perfectly willing to take the word "free", completely ignore its actual meaning, give it one of their own, and repeat it like some cult-like mantra. Their overall mindset seems to be, "just because you have to pay for it doesn't mean it isn't free".
But yeah... just another example. I guess language, words and their meanings are all malleable when it comes to some around here. "It means whatever I want it to!".
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Not every game not a sandbox is a "WOW clone". There are many variations of "theme parks".
The definition itself is questionable. Few games are pure theme parks or pure sandboxes. That only exist in your mind.
I am 39 and against sandboxes. It isnt a matter of age or how long one playes games.
I share your critique that games generally got too simplified. But aiming at theme park gamers is the wrong direction. Games can be either sandbox OR theme park and still be complex.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
We had real nostalgia back in my day, none of this piddly nostalgia that kids have today. . We had to sit in the snow to play. A mouse? Hah! We had to use a rat, and the suckers would bite! . Yeah, we couldn't feel our butts cause of the snow and our fingers were bleeding from rat bites. I camped a spawn once for two weeks straight until I passed out from hunger! . Now that was fun.
Agree with the OP. The problem is not on the players, though, its bad developers and inbred design processes.
If we had a developer who knew how to do something besides code, anything, say owning a restaurant, then maybe we'd have one with the capital to pitch his own sale, put his own money down, and produce a game himself. But, since it seems every coder out there knows nothing about life and has hardly done anything in life besides code, has virtually no capital, and must beg and scrape for work....well, the inbred gaming production starts to make a lot more sense, doesn't it.
Independent, garage games will always be the only mold-breakers out there. It's sad to say, but very few game designers understand the theory behind sandbox games. Creating a sandbox game is much more like playing God than creating a themepark, and as such takes a game designer with rare wisdon and insight both about nature and human tendencies.
Those who believe MMOs are too massive an undertaking for garage developers to tackle are wrong, and it's only a matter of time before an entrepeneur who actually knows what he/she is doing shakes the industry.
You could even build an empire. There were rules on recruiting armies, gathering companions, building castles, ruling over people... there were rules on pretty much doing whatever you wanted.)
I've said on these forums before that I think an absolute killer design for an MMO would be to crib ideas from games like SimCity for the endgame.
Games like EVE and Darkfall have shown that empire building and warring empires is a solid model for a PvP endgame. I think that taking a more constructive than destructive approach to the same concept would make for a fantastic PvE-centric endgame.
Scalable, too. Maybe a big guild could build a city, a small guild could build a castle with a village around it, and a solo player could build a tower with a farm around it. No reason why it shouldn't be fun for all of them.
Ugh, that guy has fallen into the trap of thinking that "sandbox" is synonymous with "PvP'.
Which is ironic, given that the very word "sandbox" is a reference to building sandcastles as a form of play. Not throwing lumps of dirt at the other kids. A sandbox game is a game that gives you the raw materials to make your own fun, whether or not it has features like free-for-all PvP and full looting is a completely orthogonal game design decision. There's absolutely no reason why a sandbox needs to have any PvP at all (see: A Tale In The Desert), and there's no way that having free-for-all PvP and full looting turns a themepark game into a sandbox.
Unfortunatly, like others have posted before me, its about money.
I can remeber the first time I was PK'd in UO, it was the second month after release. I was chopping trees north of brit so i can make bows to sell for money. I had no idea what a PK was, and lo-and-behold out of no where an ebolt zapped me and one shotted me.
Some day i will kill you Dread Lord Fuzzbot, maybe in another lifetime.
The industry is now geared toward timid, instant gratification seeking gamertypes who don't want loss, but only gain. It is geared for house wives, kids and goof ball teens who think they "pwn face".
If the MMORPG industry decided to just turn everything around and go back to UO full loot FFA style, 9/10ths of the industry would go back to consoles.
I've said it once, ill say it again, we're a dying breed of dinosaurs with only nostalgia to hold onto,
Meh, i guess its the reason i don't play any of the shit games anymore. I just play FPS's for kicks. Maybe planet side next will be fun.l
It seems like you really need to have experienced UO when it was fresh to understand WHY we miss it so much. It was a wonderful game that DEFINED a genre, but it never had a successor. It would be like if the very first FPS game was released and then no more (good) FPS games were ever made. The games that follow in Everquest's footsteps are nowhere near what UO was like.
Why? Because UO was NOT about leveling up or even skilling up. Granted skilling up was a big part of the game, but it was NOT the focus of the game. The game was about being part of a virtual world and the developers made every effort to make the players feel like they were part of that world.
The worst part is that the only companies that make games that are "supposed" to follow in UO's footsteps seem to think that UO was nothing but a rampant gank fest (see Mortal Online and Darkfall). However, I have heard Eve is good, but it's just not my cup of tea.
Anyway...those of us that actually played the old UO know that it was so much more than just PvP. I remember walking through huge "mini-malls" that people built, finding player made towns, buying my first house...so many memories from one game. Yet I played EQ and WoW for a long time and remember nothing.
There probably needs to be a separation mentality in the upcoming development of MMORPGs, mostly because of the new standards set by the new younger crowd in the market, and by the games with the highest subscription numbers.
When this genre began. a couple hundred thousand players was top notch, and all we needed to have a completely submersive experience. Millions of players creates a problem that does not belong in the MMORPG genre, and that problem is mainstream.
Majority rule is what changed the face of mmorpgs. The minory of gamers were the central demographic and I think that helped make the older generation of mmorpg's feel so fantastic and far from reality. In the popular titles today, the chat is just like being in a highschool lunchroom. It's current popculture events, insults, spam, and generally immature conversation that has little to do with the world you're playing in. This is what happens when you make a game that's just fun and mindless.
So many people react to this ideal harshly, and miss the point. "why shouldn't games be fun? you're stupid" The point is, the fun from MMORPGs came from something other than bunny hopping around a screen, and running around with flags, and spamming buttons... some of that existed, but it wasn't necessary and wasn't the selling point. It was about the world, the people, the lore, the characterization, and being a unique part of this world, and the community.
This is why there needs to be a separation. Understandably, 'most' people in the genre now don't care about many of the older, cherished values of mmorpgs, it's only fair to let them keep the high action low depth titles to choose from.
Perhaps some day a company will put a lot of money into the development of a high-quality (very important here is that I mentioned High Quality.) MMOrpg that is innovative, fresh, and exciting, while keeping in mind some of the original heart that was such a big part of the genre.
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.
Comments
here is a good definition of sandbox:
http://guildmasters.com/?p=45
Hope you all agree
According to Wikipedia - all MMORPG's are sandboxes.
The games have a free route and choices of play. The moment you have a choice how you like to play it can be considered a sandbox.
Gods of War or D2 could be considered a theme parc as you'll need to follow a very liniair path to advance.
All the rest is small talk and very personal opinion (like stating a sandbox means players can "construct" something, but all MMORPG's let you construct things and these things change the game - from a potion to transports to weapons).
So the term "sandbox" and certainly theme parc are - on purpose - misused by people spitting myst to what's the core problem of 95% of all MMORPG's: and that's simply very bad games (and no WOW is not one of these).
I was there for the beginning of UO too and I can't help but feel everything this genre was meant to be has fallen short, and regressed.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
Put that scenario - losing gear - in the context of two very common mindsets found in MMO players these days:
1) They must get to level cap as fast as possible because "End Game Is All That Matters (tm)"
2) They won't tolerate any penalties or loss of any kind, in any form because "Games Are Supposed To Be Fun And Being Penalized For Making Mistakes Is Not Fun(tm)". This often goes hand-in-hand with, "I Should Be Rewarded Handsomely And Often, No Matter How Menial The Task, Because Being Rewarded For Doing Next To Nothing Is Fun (tm)".
... and it becomes clear why that's the case.
In the case of 1: For people with such a mindset, losing gear, corpse runs, losing xp and so on are nothing but obstacles that get in their way of getting to end-game as fast as possible. Even the risk of dying by doing quests that are *supposed* to be difficult is unacceptable... they'll just get someone higher level to clear it out for them, while they hang back and do nothing. Such players routinely undermine content as they race through to that imaginary finish line they've decided is "the entire reason for playing" (in a genre where finish lines don't exist, no less)... then they get to "End Game", grind through the same handful of raids over and over again (all the while, complaining about leveling up being "too much of a grind"... irony, I know) to get their uber loot...
They inevitably get bored, blame the devs for not having "enough content" (of course, never acknowledging the 70, 80 or whatever levels of content they raced past for even a second), and then move on to the next MMO that they're *certain* will be "better" (because the interviews and promo videos say so)... only to do exactly the same thing, and end up in exactly the same way.
In the case of 2: Many players - and not just MMO players - can not stand adversity or challenge of any kind. If they can't do it on their first time, or if it seems "too hard" for them to do, it's "unfair and has to be made easier". And, unfortunately, society has been largely catering to them in that regard. Just look at the education system in the US as a great example. Rather than encouraging and challenging kids to work harder, reach higher and do better... the bar just keeps getting lowered so it's easier for them to reach. Sounds kinda like a few MMOs I know.
In terms of gaming. I can't even begin to tell you how many people I've known or talked to (at gaming stores, etc) who will brag about how quickly they "beat" a given game... actually knocking others for "sucking at it" if it took them longer, only to find out they used cheat codes or those "game genie" things for the entire game. Yep.. they basically cheated through the entire game, put themselves on god mode... and then dare to gloat about beating the game faster than people who actually played it legitimately. They're basically on tourist mode for the entire game, and they honestly believe it's a valid achievement.
Yep... just keep lowering that bar.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Yep... that seems to be the case around here.
Take any word that has a very well established definition - or at least a commonly accepted one - introduce it to the MMORPG.com forums, and some folks around here will decide it means what ever they need it to mean to serve their purpose.
The word "Free" has been one of the more recent examples. In their arguments in favor of F2P MMOs, some have decided that paying $20-$40 for Guild Wars makes it "free", because there's no sub fee. The term "Free To Play" was established and has been consistently applied to games where there's no payment required to download and play the game itself - no cost of entry, at all. However, to use what is arguably a very well-regarded AAA game in support of F2P, they're perfectly willing to take the word "free", completely ignore its actual meaning, give it one of their own, and repeat it like some cult-like mantra. Their overall mindset seems to be, "just because you have to pay for it doesn't mean it isn't free".
But yeah... just another example. I guess language, words and their meanings are all malleable when it comes to some around here. "It means whatever I want it to!".
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
You assume too much.
Not every game not a sandbox is a "WOW clone". There are many variations of "theme parks".
The definition itself is questionable. Few games are pure theme parks or pure sandboxes. That only exist in your mind.
I am 39 and against sandboxes. It isnt a matter of age or how long one playes games.
I share your critique that games generally got too simplified. But aiming at theme park gamers is the wrong direction. Games can be either sandbox OR theme park and still be complex.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
We had real nostalgia back in my day, none of this piddly nostalgia that kids have today.
.
We had to sit in the snow to play. A mouse? Hah! We had to use a rat, and the suckers would bite!
.
Yeah, we couldn't feel our butts cause of the snow and our fingers were bleeding from rat bites. I camped a spawn once for two weeks straight until I passed out from hunger!
.
Now that was fun.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
Agree with the OP. The problem is not on the players, though, its bad developers and inbred design processes.
If we had a developer who knew how to do something besides code, anything, say owning a restaurant, then maybe we'd have one with the capital to pitch his own sale, put his own money down, and produce a game himself. But, since it seems every coder out there knows nothing about life and has hardly done anything in life besides code, has virtually no capital, and must beg and scrape for work....well, the inbred gaming production starts to make a lot more sense, doesn't it.
Independent, garage games will always be the only mold-breakers out there. It's sad to say, but very few game designers understand the theory behind sandbox games. Creating a sandbox game is much more like playing God than creating a themepark, and as such takes a game designer with rare wisdon and insight both about nature and human tendencies.
Those who believe MMOs are too massive an undertaking for garage developers to tackle are wrong, and it's only a matter of time before an entrepeneur who actually knows what he/she is doing shakes the industry.
I've said on these forums before that I think an absolute killer design for an MMO would be to crib ideas from games like SimCity for the endgame.
Games like EVE and Darkfall have shown that empire building and warring empires is a solid model for a PvP endgame. I think that taking a more constructive than destructive approach to the same concept would make for a fantastic PvE-centric endgame.
Scalable, too. Maybe a big guild could build a city, a small guild could build a castle with a village around it, and a solo player could build a tower with a farm around it. No reason why it shouldn't be fun for all of them.
Ugh, that guy has fallen into the trap of thinking that "sandbox" is synonymous with "PvP'.
Which is ironic, given that the very word "sandbox" is a reference to building sandcastles as a form of play. Not throwing lumps of dirt at the other kids. A sandbox game is a game that gives you the raw materials to make your own fun, whether or not it has features like free-for-all PvP and full looting is a completely orthogonal game design decision. There's absolutely no reason why a sandbox needs to have any PvP at all (see: A Tale In The Desert), and there's no way that having free-for-all PvP and full looting turns a themepark game into a sandbox.
Unfortunatly, like others have posted before me, its about money.
I can remeber the first time I was PK'd in UO, it was the second month after release. I was chopping trees north of brit so i can make bows to sell for money. I had no idea what a PK was, and lo-and-behold out of no where an ebolt zapped me and one shotted me.
Some day i will kill you Dread Lord Fuzzbot, maybe in another lifetime.
The industry is now geared toward timid, instant gratification seeking gamertypes who don't want loss, but only gain. It is geared for house wives, kids and goof ball teens who think they "pwn face".
If the MMORPG industry decided to just turn everything around and go back to UO full loot FFA style, 9/10ths of the industry would go back to consoles.
I've said it once, ill say it again, we're a dying breed of dinosaurs with only nostalgia to hold onto,
Meh, i guess its the reason i don't play any of the shit games anymore. I just play FPS's for kicks. Maybe planet side next will be fun.l
I completely agree with the OP.
It seems like you really need to have experienced UO when it was fresh to understand WHY we miss it so much. It was a wonderful game that DEFINED a genre, but it never had a successor. It would be like if the very first FPS game was released and then no more (good) FPS games were ever made. The games that follow in Everquest's footsteps are nowhere near what UO was like.
Why? Because UO was NOT about leveling up or even skilling up. Granted skilling up was a big part of the game, but it was NOT the focus of the game. The game was about being part of a virtual world and the developers made every effort to make the players feel like they were part of that world.
The worst part is that the only companies that make games that are "supposed" to follow in UO's footsteps seem to think that UO was nothing but a rampant gank fest (see Mortal Online and Darkfall). However, I have heard Eve is good, but it's just not my cup of tea.
Anyway...those of us that actually played the old UO know that it was so much more than just PvP. I remember walking through huge "mini-malls" that people built, finding player made towns, buying my first house...so many memories from one game. Yet I played EQ and WoW for a long time and remember nothing.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I agree with the OP whole-heartedly.
There probably needs to be a separation mentality in the upcoming development of MMORPGs, mostly because of the new standards set by the new younger crowd in the market, and by the games with the highest subscription numbers.
When this genre began. a couple hundred thousand players was top notch, and all we needed to have a completely submersive experience. Millions of players creates a problem that does not belong in the MMORPG genre, and that problem is mainstream.
Majority rule is what changed the face of mmorpgs. The minory of gamers were the central demographic and I think that helped make the older generation of mmorpg's feel so fantastic and far from reality. In the popular titles today, the chat is just like being in a highschool lunchroom. It's current popculture events, insults, spam, and generally immature conversation that has little to do with the world you're playing in. This is what happens when you make a game that's just fun and mindless.
So many people react to this ideal harshly, and miss the point. "why shouldn't games be fun? you're stupid" The point is, the fun from MMORPGs came from something other than bunny hopping around a screen, and running around with flags, and spamming buttons... some of that existed, but it wasn't necessary and wasn't the selling point. It was about the world, the people, the lore, the characterization, and being a unique part of this world, and the community.
This is why there needs to be a separation. Understandably, 'most' people in the genre now don't care about many of the older, cherished values of mmorpgs, it's only fair to let them keep the high action low depth titles to choose from.
Perhaps some day a company will put a lot of money into the development of a high-quality (very important here is that I mentioned High Quality.) MMOrpg that is innovative, fresh, and exciting, while keeping in mind some of the original heart that was such a big part of the genre.
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.